CHAPTER III METHOD OF RESEARCH
B. Population and sample
The population of the research conswasts of the eight grade students of SMP Neg. 2 Pajukukang Kab. Bantaeng in the academic year 2016/2017.
The total number of population was 120 students.
2. Sample
The researcher will use purposive sampling in SMP Neg. 2 Pajukukang Kab. Bantaeng in the academic year 2016/2017. The
researcher takes this sampling because base on researchers pre observation, the researcher to find out one of the two classes that the students reading comprehension.
In this case, the researcher takes IX.b class as the sample of this research. It consist of 25 students 10 male and 15 female. Therefore, the total number of sample were 25 students.
C. Variables of Research 1. Independent variables
Independent variable was the Self Question Strategy.
2. Dependent variable
Dependent variable was the students improvement reading comprehension toward narrative text include literal comprehension
3. Indicator
The indicator in the was research was the students improve in reading a text after learning process using Self question strategy that focus on literal comprehension. The main idea was the “big point” or the most important idea that the researcher was communicating to the reader. Main idea was like the heart of the text or a paragraph.
D. Research Instrument
The researcher uses essay test for pre-test and post-test to assess students reading comprehension. The pre-test was given before the treatment to know the
students prior knowledge in reading comprehension. The post-test was conducted after the use of Self Question.
E. Data Collection
The procedure of collecting data involves the following steps:
1. Giving the Pre-test
The pre-test was given to the students before they get treatment.
Researcher asked the student read the narrative test than the students make question and answer it. The result of pretest was compared with the result of posttest after doing the treatment.
2. Giving the Post-test
After doing the treatment, the researcher instructs the students to read the narrative text than the students make a question and answer it.
Its result will be compared with the result of pretest to find out students improvement and their progress. The test was conducted with the same activities in pretest
F. Data Analysis
1. Calculating the mean score of the students reading test by using the following formula.
∑ x X =
N
Notation:
X = the mean score
∑ = the total raw score
N = the number of students, (Gay, 1981:298)
2. Classifying the score of the students answers into the following scale:
No Rate of Score Categories
1 9.6-10 Excellent
2 8.6-9.5 Very good
3 7.6-8.5 Good
4 6.6-7.5 Fairly good
5 5.6-6.5 Fair
6 3.6-5.5 Poor
7 0.0-3.5 Very poor
(Depdikbud, 1986:6) 3. Finding out the significant difference between the pre-test and post-test by
the calculating the value of the t-test. The following formula was employed:
2
2 ( )
( 1 )
t D
D D
N N N
Notation : t = Test of Significant difference
D = The Mean of the difference Score
∑D = The Sum of all score n = Total number of sample
∑D² = The square of sum for different (Gay, 1981:331)
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter consists of two sections, the findings of the research and the discussion of research findings. The discussion deals with the description and interpretation of the findings.
A. Findings
This part presents the result of the students’ reading comprehension achievements.
1. Rate percentage of the students’ score
Students’ score of pre-test and post-test were classified into some criteria and percentage as follows :
Table 2. The result of students’ pre-test and post-test No
.
Classification Score Pre-test Post-test
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Excellent Very Good Good Fairly Good Fair
Poor Very poor
9.6 - 10 8.6–9.5 7.6 - 8.5 6.6–7.5 5.6–6.5 3.6–5.5 0–3.5
0 0 0 2 6 7 7
0 % 0 % 0%
9.09 % 27.27 %
31.8 % 31.8 %
0 0 4 11
6 1 0
0 % 0 % 18.18 %
50 % 27.27 %
4.54%
0 %
Total 22 100 % 22 100 %
Table 2 indicates there were 2 students (9.09 %) got fairly good score, 6 students (27.27 %) got fair score, 7 students (31.8%) got poor score 7 students (31.8%) got very poor score. It means that the ability of the students to comprehend the text. But after giving treatment the table shows that out of 22 students. There were students no got excellent and very good score, 4 student (18.18%) got good score, 11 students (50 %) got fairly good score, 6 students (27.27%) got fair score and 1 students (4.54%) got poor score. It can be concluded that the rate percentage good in the post-test was greater than that of in the pre-test.
Table 3. The mean score and standard deviation of the pre-test and post- test Test Mean score Standard deviation
Pre-test Post-test
5.04 6.77
1.13 0.81
Table 3 shows that the mean score that students’ obtained was 5.04 and post- test was 6.77. The standard deviation of pre-test was 1.13 and standard deviation of post-test was 0.81. The mean score of the students’ post-test was higher than the mean score of the pre-test.
2. T-test value
In order to know whether or not the difference between the mean score of test and post-test is statistically significant the t-test statistical analysis for non
independent sample was employed. The result of the t-test is shown in the following table.
Table 4. The t-test of students’ comprehension achievement
Variable t-test value t-table value
X2–X1 9.3 2.080
The value of the t-test is greater than t-table (9.3 > 2.080). it can be concluded that there is a significant difference between the result of the students’
pre-test and post-test.
3. Hypothesis Testing
The result of the statistical analysis at the level significance 0.05 with degrees of freedom (df) = n –1, where df = 22– 1 and df = 21 indicated that there was significant difference between the mean score of the post-test and pre-test. The mean score of the pre-test was 6.85 and mean score of the post- test was 6.77. In addition the t-test value was greater that the t-table value (9.3
> 2.080).
It means that there is significant difference between the students’ reading comprehension before and after Intensive Reading in teaching reading. This also means that null hypothesis (H0) was rejected, while the alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted.
B. Discussion
The discussion deals with arguments and further interpretation of the research findings of test result both the pretest and posttest results. The description of the data collected through test as explained in the previous section shows that the students’ reading comprehension improves considerably.
It is supported by the mean scorerate of the students’ pretest and posttest.
Using Self Question Strategy are how the students’ able to understand the text and how the students’ able to make the question about the text and answer it. So it can be inferred statistically based on t-test value that Intensive Reading is more effective in developing students’ comprehension of literal comprehension in reading skill..
Based on the result of the students’ answers either before and after treatment, the researcher noticed that students often did not understand the questions of the text. It proves that the problem on the background still occurs, however, the use of Self Question was successfully maximized the students’
reading comprehension. The students were encouraged with the use of Self Question in their reading.
Self Question strategy that was applied to be helpful to motivate the students improve their reading comprehension. The technique made the students be creative students become active with the text, have more opportunities to think about what they are reading, and gain the skills to effectively reflect on what they reading .
In applying Self Question, the students are able improve the levels of reading comprehension. There is literal comprehension. Richards (1995) states that different types of reading comprehension are distinguished according to the readers’ purposes and the type of reading that they use. The students also could improve their understanding of the main idea and supporting details.
From the data showed in the pretest and posttest the achievement of the students on their literal level of comprehension is increased where the data of posttest significantly improved from the distribution frequency of the result and the mean score in the test.
The result of the students’ achievement on the literal level of comprehension above indicates that the students have improvement to recognize the literal statements in the text. The students can explicitly or directly state the information given in the text; for example, main ideas, details, cause and effect and sequences written in the text.
The data analysis shows that most of the students In the pre-test there were 2 students (9.09 %) got fairly good score, 6 students (27.27 %) got fair score, 7 students (31.8%) got poor score 7 students (31.8%) got very poor score. It means that the ability of the students to comprehend the text. But after giving treatment the table shows that out of 22 students. There were students no got excellent and very good score, 4 student (18.18%) got good score, 11 students (50 %) got fairly good score, 6 students (27.27%) got fair score and 1 students (4.54%) got poor score
The mean score of that students’ pre-test was 5.04 and post-test was 6.77. The standard deviation of pre-test was 1.13 and standard deviation of post-test was 0.81. The mean score of the students’ post-test was higher than the mean score of the pre-test.
The value of the t-test is greater than t-table (9.3 > 2.080). based on the result of the t-test, the researcher found that there were a significant difference between the result of pre-test and post-test. In the other words, communicative tasks is effective in developing the students’ reading comprehension.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
This chapter presents conclusion and suggestions based on the findings and discussions of data analysis.
A. Conclusion
Based on the findings and discussion of the research, it can be concluded that the teaching of English reading using Self Question can improve the reading comprehension of the second year students SMP Neg. 2 Pa’jukukang kab. Bantaeng. It was proved by the t-test value, that is 46.5, which was greater than the t-table (2.080) Which was classified as good score, the researcher also concludes that there was a significant difference between the reading comprehension of the students of SMP Neg. 2 Pa’jukukang kab.
Bantaeng before and after Self Question Strategy. In other words can improve students’ reading comprehension.
B. Suggestion
In order to improve the student’s reading comprehension, the writer puts forward some suggestion as follows:
1. The teacher should give the students more training, guidance, motivation in reading.
2. The teacher should presents various strategies in teaching reading in order to make the students more interesting in the reading skills, especially in understanding a text and how to make questions from the text.
35
3. It was suggested to use this Self Question Strategy could improve the students’ reading comprehension.
4. The material of reading should be designed and presented by using Self Question Strategy that the students can study them attractively an effectively.
5. The writer suggest to other researchers to conduct further research about Self Question Strategy to see what strategies are more helpful for the students in reading or make this strategy to be completeness in learning process especially in teaching reading.
.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, and Armbruster. 1980. The Complete Thinker: A Handbook of Techniques For Creative and Critical Problem Solving. New Jersey:
Englewood Cliffs
Adlit. 2012. Inferential Reading. Online. Retrieved on February 9th 2016 at http://www.adlit.org/strategies/23355/
Berg Howard. 2010, Improving Reading Strategies: Literal Reading And The Learning Crisis. Online. Retrieved on May 25th 2012 at http://ezinearticles.com/?Improving-Reading-Strategies:-Literal-Reading Bernstein, Berg. 1973. Class Code and Control (vol. 1). London: Paladin
Byrnes, Heidy. 1998. Learning Foreign and Second Languange : Perspectives in Research and Scholarship. New york: MLA.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1988). Mood and the mundane: Relations between daily life events and self-reported mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Depdikbud, 1985. Petunjuk Pelaksanaan Proses Belajar Mengajar dan Petunjuk Pelaksanaan Penilaian Sekolah Menengah Umum.Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan
Gay, L. R. 1981. Educational Research Competencies Analysis and Application, 3rd ed. Singapore: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2007. How to teach English. England, Longman
Harmer, Jeremy. 2001. The Practice in English Teaching. New York : Longman Hutura. 2012. Literal, Inferential and Critical Reading. Journal of education and
practice, ISN 2222-1753 (paper) ISSN 2222-288X (online). Vol 3. No 7.
2012. Retrieved from http://www.hhpublishing.com. Accessed on February 02 2015 at 01.55
Irawati. 2012. Improving the Students Reading Comprehension Through Directed Reading Activity Method. Thesis
Heward, W. L. (2013). Exceptional children, an introduction to special education.
(10thed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Khaeruddin, Akip Erwin. 2006. Methodology Penelitain. Makassar. CV Berkah Berani
Klingner, Jannette K., Sharon & Boardman, Alison. 2007. Teaching Reading Comprehension to Students with Learning Difficulties. New York: The Guilford Press.
Larense, Diane and freeman, 2000. Techniques and Principles in language Teaching.oxford University of Chicago and London.
LaidLaw Brothers. 1962. Using good English John E. Brewton. New York:
Oxford University press.
Mikulecky, Beatrice. 2008. Teaching Reading in A Second Language. Pearson Education: Boston University.
Nurfaidah. 2013. The Improvement the Students Reading Comprehension by Using Open Ended Questioning Technique. Thesis
Patel and Jain. 2008. English Language Teaching: Methods, Tools, and Technique. New York: Sunrise Publisher and Distribution.
Pennington, Mark. 2009. How to Teach Reading Comprehension,
(www.scribd.com/doc/21255397/how-to-teach-reading-comprehension.
Accessed on February 01, 2010)
Richards, Jack.C.2002. Methodology in language teaching. Cambridge : University press.
Richard, J.C. and Rodgers, T. S. 1986. Approach and Methods in Language Teaching Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, Richard J. and Dale D. Johnson. 1980. Teaching Children to Read. Second Edition. USA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Snow, Catherine E. 2002. Reading for Understanding: Toward Research and Development Program in Reading Comprehension. Santa Monica: Rand.
Tarin. 1985. Pengertian Reading Menurut Para Ahli.
http://mrrabbitmymvp.blogspot.co.id/2013/11/pengertian-reading-menurut- para-ahli.html/diakses 16 Juni 2016
Wilson, Jacqueline. (2006). Great Books to Read Aloud. Britain: Random House Children’s Books